Google Docs to prompt users to write in language that does not offend

[Ashleyyyy]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

No it’s not. A persons feelings can’t be prosecuted. Committing an actual crime can be. 

i'm not talking about prosecution, i'm talking about not caring for others and just being an asshole in general. 

 

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Be that as it may, but if you get offended from someone using the phrase “dude” when referring to anyone…that’s on you. Let it go. 

i get offended if it's used to refer to me personally. for obvious reasons. 

[BigDamn]

This is what happens when you work on a project that has been completed for years and are searching for things to do in order to not lose your job.

 

Boss: "Have you done anything this week? What have you been working on?"
Dev: "ummmm uhhhhhhh.... MAKING GOOGLE DOCS A SAFE SPACE. AND IF YOU TRY TO STOP ME I'LL EXPOSE YOU ON TWITTER"
Boss: *facepalm* "fuck my life"

[Master Delta Chief]

33 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

With this are you're saying whether you approve or not, just say nothing and accept?
Bullshit.

And there is nothing to "Grow up and get Over", that job is for those behind all this, always offended by......
Everything.

Yes, we don't have to use it and not even an issue of use but I can guarantee they won't stop with the "Correctness" either.
They'll just keep pushing it until it becomes the norm and after that the standard and after that the rule which is the goal with it anyway.

I don't really care about the feature with the exception that it may be seen as over-correcting, which again is the case. However, people on this fucking forum (like you), are blowing this shit way out of proportion. It's literally acts like a 'spell-checker' but in a more enhanced way. Again it's likely you can disable it so you won't see it anyway. Regardless, I personally don't get offended quickly, but if others are (when it comes to pronouns), just stop being a dick and respect the way they want to be called.  

[tikker]

49 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

This implies that using gendered language is not inclusive. You are wrong. My use of gendered language (e.g. I complain about my mailman, who is male, screwing up my mail) is not an attack or insult to someone else's gender.

And if someone takes it that way then they need to do some serious soul searching and not care about gendered language.

  Typically/initially the issue they take with e.g. mailman is not you referring to your male mailman as a mailman, but you referring to that job as mailman. They see the term "mailman" (along with other words that simply never had a different form) as uninclusive/offensive towards female mail carriers. As such they want these words to become "mail carrier" in this case, or chair person. Things like "mankind" to refer to humanity are seen as problematic for the same reason.

 

31 minutes ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

i get offended if it's used to refer to me personally. for obvious reasons. 

In which case you would respond with "sorry good sir/madam, but I am a girl and would prefer you not address me as 'dude' please", not start a petition proclaiming the word "dude" is uninclusive towards women and thus should be not be used. Mind you that "for obvious reasons" is a dangerous argument to make. You make a boat load of assumptions about the other person's mindset by saying this. "Obviously" if someone calls you a dude on the internet they probably could not care less if you actually are a dude or a dudette.

[suicidalfranco]

59 minutes ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

spell check applications have done this for decades. 

Spell check corrects your gramatical mistakes, this tries change expression

[Eaglerino]

1 hour ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

that's the same as saying "i really don't see how people dying if i hit them with my car is my problem, i'm not dead".

no it's not. you don't die when you get offended by someone else's speech. stop trying to equate words to physical damage, words cannot harm you.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

no it's not. you don't die when you get offended by someone else's speech. stop trying to equate words to physical damage, words cannot harm you.

“Words cannot harm you” that’s been proven to be untrue in documents as old as the Bible.

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

“Words cannot harm you” that’s been proven to be untrue in documents as old as the Bible.

Press x for doubt

[Eaglerino]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

“Words cannot harm you” that’s been proven to be untrue in documents as old as the Bible.

come to my house and say any string of words you want with me in the room and prove me wrong then

[Unclescar]

16 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

If someone prefers they/them, just use they/them

no.

 

I'm not only under no obligation to do so, but I am obliged to tell you to fuck off if you try to compel me. I will not waste my effort trying to memorize everyone's preferences, nor will I misgender them by calling them something they clearly are not. Yes I just used They/Them to refer to a non-specific person of either gender, not a specific person of one of them; I was grammatically correct.

16 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

it's not that hard

its not a matter of difficulty, its a matter of principal. I don't intentionally upset people, but I refuse to live by the demands of their subjective feelings.

 

Google (and everyone else that uses feelings to demand certain behavior or other people) can fuck right off

[Beerzerker]

41 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

1: I don't really care about the feature with the exception that it may be seen as over-correcting, which again is the case. 

2: However, people on this fucking forum (like you), are blowing this shit way out of proportion. It's literally acts like a 'spell-checker' but in a more enhanced way. Again it's likely you can disable it so you won't see it anyway.

3: Regardless, I personally don't get offended quickly, but if others are (when it comes to pronouns), just stop being a dick and respect the way they want to be called.  

1: This I will agree with you on.

 

2: From the way you worded this it's like you've already judged the forum and those within so who's really being a dick here?
As for what it will be, that's probrably right but then again we're not the ones making this or really know just what it's going to be ATM to honestly say it.

3: Again I'm not worried about being offended - I've been "Offended" myself many times over by far less and got over it everytime.
When it comes to words and wording I'm not gonna play the "Politically Correct Word Game" as you (Apparently) would have me do. One's failure to cope isn't my problem to deal with, got too many problems of my own to handle of far more importance than this singular issue so good luck with all that.

I'm not gonna argue about it, that's just how it is concerning myself and I've said as much - So just deal, do as you see fit to do and be done with it. 
 

[AlwaysFSX]

39 minutes ago, tikker said:

  Typically/initially the issue they take with e.g. mailman is not you referring to your male mailman as a mailman, but you referring to that job as mailman. They see the term "mailman" (along with other words that simply never had a different form) as uninclusive/offensive towards female mail carriers. As such they want these words to become "mail carrier" in this case, or chair person. Things like "mankind" to refer to humanity are seen as problematic for the same reason.

Which I answer in the second part as "it's just a word, not a personal attack." Mankind is the base example for why this is ridiculous because of etymological reasons. _____man refers to a human, not specifically a male.

[IkeaGnome]

What happens if we type something about MAN trucks? Asking for a friend.

 

On a related note. I wouldn't be surprised to see it revealed this way. Once they gauge how angry people get about it for some odd reason, they reveal their ace in the hole. A button to toggle this feature on.

[tikker]

7 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Which I answer in the second part as "it's just a word, not a personal attack." Mankind is the base example for why this is ridiculous because of etymological reasons. _____man refers to a human, not specifically a male.

The example you gave was you calling your male mailman a mailman as not being an attack on gender hence why I gave that reply, but I think we're along the same line. I'm also in the camp of man being able to refer to a person/human in general. (Though being a male will often have that opinion "invalidated")

[Ashleyyyy]

1 hour ago, tikker said:

Mind you that "for obvious reasons" is a dangerous argument to make. You make a boat load of assumptions about the other person's mindset by saying this. "Obviously" if someone calls you a dude on the internet they probably could not care less if you actually are a dude or a dudette.

i literally have my pronouns in my signature... and my discord username... and anywhere else i can. 

 

like, you probably have never seen my profile before and won't know this, but i'm a trans woman. you probably have no idea what that's like, but lemme give you an idea. if only one person uses he/him for me or something similar, it's gonna ruin my day. that's why i'm particularly sensitive to this... 

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

Spell check corrects your gramatical mistakes, this tries change expression

and that's literally 1984 because.....?

 

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

“Correctness” runs both ways.  I personally think there’s more political correctness on the right than the left atm. It’s about different things but it’s no less strong. 

uh yea sure, i love all the right wingers who go out of their way to call any trans person they meet by the wrong pronouns just to ruin their day and offend them. get a reality check. 

 

58 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

no it's not. you don't die when you get offended by someone else's speech. stop trying to equate words to physical damage, words cannot harm you.

words can absolutely harm you. if you get called an ugly worthless heap of garbage every day of your life that's gonna leave a mark on you. 

[CerealExperimentsLain]

10 hours ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

So apparently, Google Docs suggesting that you should say "mailperson" instead of "mailman", or saying "they" instead of "he" when talking generally is 1984 Orwell and we're all going do die? Meanwhile I presume most of you thought that the Neuralink experiment was cool and scientific? Even though neither of these have to do with 1984 (I assume none of you have actually read the god-damn book because 1984 was about the government surveillance and the controlling citizens, not private businesses doing this), a private business literally controlling your thought process and having the ability to inject any thought into your brain is MUCH more "Orwellian" than "Google docs made me switch he to they!".

I'm in this boat.  I don't see the big deal.  Using gender neutral titles for unknown parties just makes sense.  If you don't if the mail carrier is a man or a woman, then yes 'Mail carrier' is the reasonable label to use.  I think a few people here are are a little quick to respond with outrage due to the nature of the internet these days.

This is especially important when dealing with business emails.  If all you know is you'll be visited by 'Another company's CFO' tomorrow, you don't assume it's  a man, because if you're wrong, now you look kind of stupid. (Or worse if said CFO see's you having made that assumption).  Avoiding gendering unknown parties just makes sense.

 

Fun story, I mail care packages to my partner who's deployed with the military right now.  My mail carrier was confused by the firs package because while the address was domestic (Address of the fleet mail office) it also had a required CN22 customs declaration on it (because the military would then courier to the other side of the world and I'm not even sure which countries it will go through).  This is pretty abnormal for domestic mail so he asked and I said my partner was with the military, this was a care package, and there'd be plenty more being mailed out for the next week.

"Oh well, you wish your, er, ...Husband the best?  I considered going in to the military when I was younger!"
"...Girlfriend, actually."

"Oh?  OH!  Sorry, sorry!  Anyway, yeah I almost went to RMC right out of high school."

He was cool sure but he def felt a bit stupid for about 5 seconds there.

It's not 'The SJWs trying to control your language' or 'Corporations getting too woke for their own good!', it's the assisting tools for text editor going 'Hey, you SURE it's okay to guess that's a man?  Women can be doctors too, ya know?  If you're not sure then maybe you should not try to specify?'

[Beerzerker]

22 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Which I answer in the second part as "it's just a word, not a personal attack." Mankind is the base example for why this is ridiculous because of etymological reasons. _____man refers to a human, not specifically a male.

I agree.
It's just that if and when the term "Mailman" for example is used many want to take it as an attack when it's not or even meant to be. The "Spirit" of how it's used and what for is very important here. 
I get it - Some don't like it and that's up to the individual to interprit but also having something like Google come in and start pestering me over my own choice of words isn't something I'll tolerate for long and I seriously doubt many, if any would themselves regardless if it's gender-neutral or not.

I can see useage of Google docs going way down once it starts.

 

[AlwaysFSX]

20 minutes ago, tikker said:

The example you gave was you calling your male mailman a mailman as not being an attack on gender hence why I gave that reply, but I think we're along the same line. I'm also in the camp of man being able to refer to a person/human in general. (Though being a male will often have that opinion "invalidated")

I did, probably poorly written out but my thoughts were:
-If I used a gendered word to talk about a gendered person there should be no issue with that
-___man doesn't necessarily refer to a male and if someone wants to attribute the word that way it's disingenuous of them and only for the sake about being upset at something or someone

[Bombastinator]

16 minutes ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

i literally have my pronouns in my signature... and my discord username... and anywhere else i can. 

 

like, you probably have never seen my profile before and won't know this, but i'm a trans woman. you probably have no idea what that's like, but lemme give you an idea. if only one person uses he/him for me or something similar, it's gonna ruin my day. that's why i'm particularly sensitive to this... 

and that's literally 1984 because.....?

 

uh yea sure, i love all the right wingers who go out of their way to call any trans person they meet by the wrong pronouns just to ruin their day and offend them. get a reality check. 

 

words can absolutely harm you. if you get called an ugly worthless heap of garbage every day of your life that's gonna leave a mark on you. 

I did say different. Peer pressure is peer pressure and anyone can do it. 

[Ashleyyyy]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I did say different. Peer pressure is peer pressure and anyone can do it. 

you can't be hateful on one thing and "politically correct" on another point and call yourself politically correct. you are still hateful lmfao

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

I did, probably poorly written out but my thoughts were:
-If I used a gendered word to talk about a gendered person there should be no issue with that
-___man doesn't necessarily refer to a male and if someone wants to attribute the word that way it's disingenuous of them and only for the sake about being upset at something or someone

Part of it is English has some gendered words.  Romance languages are worse.  Even inanimate objects are gendered and it can seem pretty random. Iirc in Spanish chairs are female (?!) In German the formal tense (Zie) has no gender at all.  It’s just not there.  German is relatively new as languages go.  It got codified in the 15th century. Romance languages are of course derived from what the romans spoke. English got derived from a mess of stuff based more or less on who happened to be controlling the island at the time. It changed hands a lot.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Bombastinator

[AlwaysFSX]

11 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Part of it is English has some gendered words.  Romance languages are worse.  Even inanimate objects are gendered and it can seem pretty random. Iirc in Spanish chairs are female (?!) In German the formal tense (Zie) has no gender at all.  It’s just not there.  German is relatively new as languages go.  It got codified in the 15th century. Romance languages are of course derived from what the romans spoke. English got derived from a mess of stuff based more or less on who happened to be controlling the island at the time. It changed hands a lot.

French is a disaster in an attempt to make it sound high class. German is several Germanic languages slapped together with """"rules"""". Latin was simple but straight forward. The Normans went "This is stupid" and made English to duct tape some languages together.

People REALLY need to unwad their panties over languages being gendered.

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

you can't be hateful on one thing and "politically correct" on another point and call yourself politically correct. you are still hateful lmfao

They specifically don’t call themselves that.  The title isn’t the important part though. Can such things be totally hypocritical?  Sure. 

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

French is a disaster in an attempt to make it sound high class. German is several Germanic languages slapped together with """"rules"""". Latin was simple but straight forward. The Normans went "This is stupid" and made English to duct tape some languages together.

People REALLY need to unwad their panties over languages being gendered.

The “wadding” as you call it, has been growing for hundreds of years though.  The whole argument that it just isn’t a big deal or doesn’t do anything has been proved false by time alone.  Have there been stupid attempts? Sure.  The whole “womyn” spelling thing from the 90’s thing comes to mind.  The stupidity was based on a lack of understanding of etymology though. Not all of it is dumb.  I don’t think this one is.  It doesn’t address the fundamental issues of the “rifling through your stuff” that Google can do though and  makes clear that it is a potential problem.  IMHO the “but it’s not that big a deal” argument strikes me  as weak. It pales in comparison to the implication that the ability to DO it in the first place exists. Not that I expect much can be done about it now.  What is being complained about just seems weird to me.  It’s a tool that could be put to all kinds of uses, and it’s a much scarier tool used in secret than in public.   The complaint about what the subject of the rifling does is very nearly irrelevant. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Bombastinator

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

The “wadding” as you call it, has been growing for hundreds of years though.

Because before that the genetic waste category died before they could pass on their faulty genes... But nowadays they are starting to make up an alarmingly large portion of humanity.